Back from the brink - recovering from failing projects

Philip Powell
17 November 2016

Twitter FacebookLinkedIn

Print

Topics 

Project management

Programme Management

A good project manager shouldn’t fear failure because it can help to ensure future success, says Philip Powell. 

At the beginning of 2016, a hard-hitting report from the National Audit Office warned that up to a third of the government’s major infrastructure projects would be ‘in doubt’ or ‘unachievable’ due to poor programme management and spiralling costs. This was well before the political and economic uncertainties of the summer emerged. Despite government commitment to investment, it seems that too many big infrastructure programmes continue to fail to achieve their aims due to poor planning. 

A good project manager shouldn’t be afraid of failure, however. They should embrace it and prepare for it, because doing so will help to ensure the success of future projects. There are also a number of established techniques for bringing failing projects back from the brink and it is rarely too late to make a difference to the final outcome of a major programme. 

For the last few years, a lot of my time has been spent helping customers facing project or programme challenges, to reassess or recover from a position of under-performance. Although no two projects are ever the same, the methods for resolving major challenges are remarkably consistent - investigating what has gone wrong and why and then overcoming the failures through a programme management approach. 

"A good project manager shouldn't be afraid of failure - they should embrace it and prepare for it, because doing so will help to ensure the success of future projects."

As an industry we are getting much better at programme management by investing the time upfront to get things right, but things inevitably can and do go wrong. When they do, it is important to take a step back and discover exactly where the points of failure are, how and why they happened and how to correct them.

Determining the drivers of failure

When it comes to investigating standalone project failures, we often find that issues centre on the capability of the team, leadership, and defined scope. These then lead to the familiar issues in project delivery, such as time, cost, quality, safety, relationships and longer-term operability.

However, when looking at projects that are part of a larger programme, the drivers for failure can be very different. For example, with major national and often one-off events such as the Olympics, there can be less tangible but equally important factors in the mix, such as the reputational risk of not being ready on time. Decision-making in these situations can often be influenced by political or reputational imperatives. These priorities then filter through to the delivery processes and systems underpinning the projects, even if they have a detrimental effect on value for money for the programme as a whole. 

There can be a number of constraints on projects which can result in compressed time scales, budget issues or a clash of priorities. These include:

• Changes in the political, social, economic and/or environmental climate 
• Regulatory or competition-driven funding issues 
• Organisational or even national reputational issues
• Sanctioning and governance processes which although essential but can cause unwanted delays 
• Bottlenecks such as external assurance ‘gates’ or supply chain capacity. 

Identifying these external risks from the outset, and devising a strategy for addressing them, if the unexpected should arise, can be critical in minimising exposure.  

Take control - establish your review team

It takes courage to face some of these issues, especially when they may have been somewhat self-inflicted. Customers need support as well as guidance, to enable them to move away from failure and blame. It is vital that they are encouraged to step back from the immediacy of project delivery and re-evaluate where they are. 

One approach to mitigating the challenges of programme risk is to establish a review team. The purpose of a review team is to essentially provide a fresh perspective on the issues in question. Members of this team can vary and it is best chaired by a stakeholder who is one-step removed from the day-to-day delivery operations.

Once the team is established, this process should start with a review of the original programme business case, its context, deliverables and anticipated benefits. In my experience, especially in the regulated utilities, it has been changes in context that have had the most profound effect on the perception of success or failure in the associated programmes and projects. The introduction of network price control frameworks, such as Ofgem’s RIIO, has completely changed this, with enormous impact all the way through asset management and the supply chain. 

"A review team often benefits from utilising simple problem-solving techniques that can help to maintain focus during the review period. 'Lean' methodology, for example, will help the review team to prioritise customer value while minimising waste, as well as providing structure and assurance in an otherwise chaotic scenario."

I have found that a review team often benefits from utilising simple problem-solving techniques that can help to maintain focus during the review period. ‘Lean’ methodology, for example, will help the review team to prioritise customer value while minimising waste, as well as providing structure and assurance in an otherwise chaotic scenario.

It is also all too easy to get stuck in a perpetual review cycle with little or no output and it is vital that the evaluation is honest and relevant - it may not be necessary or valuable to examine every aspect in the minutiae. It is key that the review maintains sight of its core objective - a plan to recover & succeed.

Recovery

The recovery plan should not only look at the solutions to the immediate failures, but also at future-proofing, to minimise the risk of known issues creeping in again. It is useful here to engage with the key principles of programme management and to consider how they should be applied to the programme and projects in question. Key amongst these are the ongoing benefits and stakeholder management, but organisation, planning, risk management, quality and configuration management, and auditing, should also be given due consideration.

Recovery is often a slow, meticulous and demanding process, which requires a high and consistent level of engagement from all parties. Managing stakeholder and sponsor expectations is fundamental, as their patience can be sorely tested through this phase. However with the right team and the right approach, it is possible to recover and bring projects back from the brink. A well-planned and executed recovery is also an extremely valuable and fulfilling process, with wide reaching benefits for the customer as well as the project. 

Philip Powell is head of commercial services at Costain.